• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Critics slam the White House after Psaki reveals it's consulting with Facebook to 'flag misinformation'

Hypothetical said:
when the federal government demands facebook censor people, it is a freedom of speech issue.

people are free to do what they like. the government should try convincing more than strong arming and squashing freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Demands? Strong arming?

They asked Facebook strongly to do their civic duty. The exact thing they did was make a request.

If they were coercing them with anything other than a strongly worded memo or telephone call I would be concerned.

Coercion requires some threat, so what is that threat?

If you need an example of government coercing private companies over free speech rights see here:

www.cnn.com

Georgia House threatens Delta tax break after CEO slammed new voting restrictions

Members of the Georgia House on Wednesday sought to revoke a major tax break for Delta Air Lines as punishment for its CEO's public criticism of the state's controversial new law that clamps down on ballot access. The fight underscores the political peril companies face if they challenge new...
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
 
Last edited:
Variant said:
What the government is doing with my money asking a private company to do it's best to try to remove some blatant falsehoods that are harming the effort to fight a pandemic.
Click to expand...

IE, supress speech. We dont suddenly give up our rights to life and liberty because of virus. There is almost nothing beyond massive violent unrest that would ever justify that. The first amendment doesnt have exceptions like 'you cant say a virus is a hoax'. Youre doing exactly what theyre doing. You dont agree with what someone is saying, so supress it.
 
jonny5 said:
IE, supress speech. We dont suddenly give up our rights to life and liberty because of virus. There is almost nothing beyond massive violent unrest that would ever justify that. The first amendment doesnt have exceptions like 'you cant say a virus is a hoax'. Youre doing exactly what theyre doing. You dont agree with what someone is saying, so supress it.
Click to expand...
There is no right to bear false witness while hypocritically claiming or implying the "gospel Truth".
 

2021-12-30 15:27 | Archive of HHS.gov

www.hhs.gov www.hhs.gov

See, its a slippery slope. First they are simply saying they you dont have a right to privacy about youre health. Then they start suppressing speech so you dont have information. Thats not working, so on to the next thing. "Youre actively harming people by not agreeing with the govt." Now its an all of society approach. The entire govt and society will be mobilized to make sure there is only one idea. How does everyone notsee this as at the very least worrying, not to mention clearly illegal for them to take action to censor speech and pressure the media to censor speech?

the tech and social media companies who must do more to address the spread on their platforms, to all of us identifying and avoiding sharing misinformation, tackling this challenge will require an all-of-society approach
Click to expand...
tweets that contained misinformation were more likely to be politically charged and have content promoting discord.
Click to expand...
the urgent need for technology and social media companies to address the way misinformation and disinformation spread on their platforms, threatening people's health.
Click to expand...
 
Anthony60 said:
Really, we did? Because I didn't hear Psaki mention any push back on their censorship demands. If anything, it seems we established FB was happy to comply.
Click to expand...
They didn't demand. They gave them purposals and recommendations to Facebook to combat these lies.

Stop lying
 
Anthony60 said:
It doesn't matter what FB is doing, it's what the government is doing that's the issue. Follow?
Click to expand...
They aren't doing anything beyond asking and suggesting. Nobody is forced to do anything.

Stop lying
 
Anthony60 said:
It doesn't matter what FB is doing, it's what the government is doing that's the issue. Follow?
Click to expand...
Source for that fat one?

The govt speaks, FB listened. You have a problem with that?
 
Plasmaball said:
They didn't demand. They gave them purposals and recommendations to Facebook to combat these lies.

Stop lying
Click to expand...
Even if it was just lil' ole "mild suggestions" by the government (and it wasn't), that's government censorship and a violation of the 1st amendment. Checkmate.
 
Anthony60 said:
Even if it was just lil' ole "mild suggestions" by the government (and it wasn't), that's government censorship and a violation of the 1st amendment. Checkmate.
Click to expand...
No, no its not.
 
Plasmaball said:
They aren't doing anything beyond asking and suggesting. Nobody is forced to do anything.

Stop lying
Click to expand...
LOL! Sure, the government flags post that they want removed, that's all. Oh, how is that section 230 immunity going for you, good?

Anyone that deludes themselves into somehow thinking the government can make censorship suggestions, but they are totally optional is a damn fool. Don't even join the discussion if you think that, you are not qualified.
 
Source for that fat one?
Click to expand...
My brain. Try using yours, it might help.
mrjurrs said:
The govt speaks, FB listened. You have a problem with that?
Click to expand...
Sounds like the Harvey Weinstein defense. He just made suggestions, they consented. So what if he was the boss and had great power over their careers? Just like the government has great power over Facebook's fortunes.

Yeah, you bet they listened.
 
Anthony60 said:
LOL! Sure, the government flags post that they want removed, that's all. Oh, how is that section 230 immunity going for you, good?

Anyone that deludes themselves into somehow thinking the government can make censorship suggestions, but they are totally optional is a damn fool. Don't even join the discussion if you think that, you are not qualified.
Click to expand...
They aren't forcing people to do things. You dont know what the 1st amendment is.

There is no violation here but whats in your brain.
 
Anthony60 said:
That's pretty sad, that you see those ignorant statements as facts.
Click to expand...
If it is where are the lawsuits? Fairly open and shut cade according to you...


What you telling me they haven't? Awe
 
Anthony60 said:
Really? Who are you expecting to bring a lawsuit? Don't say Facebook, because they sure won't.
Click to expand...
The 12 people the white house brought up?
Because it wont happen because the government isn't stopping speech
 
Anthony60 said:
My brain. Try using yours, it might help.

Sounds like the Harvey Weinstein defense. He just made suggestions, they consented. So what if he was the boss and had great power over their careers? Just like the government has great power over Facebook's fortunes.

Yeah, you bet they listened.
Click to expand...
That source doesn't cut it. Proven by comparing the govt to FB's boss.
 
mrjurrs said:
That source doesn't cut it. Proven by comparing the govt to FB's boss.
Click to expand...
OMG! A post that doesn't have a link to a left wing nut job site! An original thought! Noooo!
No, it's just too much for you to handle, and you've got nothing to counter, that's all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom